5 ms·
What I'd "call even money on" is that patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train
by haberman 16y ago
What I'd "call even money on" is that patent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. I also would bet that Google's legal team knows what they're doing.
- kenjackson 16y agopatent holders who are looking for a piece of the video decoding royalty pie would have jumped on the MPEG-LA gravy train already. They have... they're called members of the pool. The same ones that came after Microsoft when MS did VC-1. The same ones who will come after WebM.
- haberman 16y agoGoogle already knows about them. And has bet the future on WebM anyway. I trust Google's legal counsel more than I trust you. What if H.264 infringes on some of Google's patents? Google could countersue and go after members of MPEG-LA, or even end-users of H.264. Google's patent license only covers Google's WebM implementation.
- kenjackson 16y agoYou do realize that Google's legal counsel has very little say in this. Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. With that said, you'd probably say that you trust Google's engineers more than me. I'd hope so. You have no idea who I am.
- haberman 16y ago> Google's engineers are making the call and the counsel is just providing legal advice. The legal counsel doesn't know what is infringing on what. [citation needed] What makes you think that a big company with enormous potential for legal liability would let engineers make decisions that are of legal consequence, like whether to aggressively push a video format amidst a patent minefield? Do you think the engineers wrote the patent license too?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- recoiledsnake 16y agoIf so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 (perhaps even the OS) instantly allowing about 40% of worldwide to seamlessly watch WebM content. I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions for the hundreds of millions of installs that Windows and/or IE9 ship.
- haberman 16y ago> If so then what is the reason Google is not providing patent indemnification? You could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either. > If it does, MS would bundle it with IE9 That is not at all clear. I would even call it unlikely. > I guess Google is afraid of being sued for billions I guess MPEG-LA is afraid of the same thing.
- kenjackson 16y agoYou could ask the same question of MPEG-LA: they don't indemnify their customers either. But Microsoft does. Why doesn't Google?
- haberman 16y agoI wasn't aware that they did -- interesting. But actually that only covers "any Microsoft software licensed for a fee for your end use." [0] Since Google does not charge end-users for any of its software that it distributes, you could argue that Google's indemnification program is just as extensive as Microsoft's. [0] http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-416C-80AE-BB6C0A9D1B99/IP%20Indemnification%20Policy.docx http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...
- kenjackson 16y agoReally? That's your argument? If that's your argument an equally valid one is you get what you pay for. ;-) As a consumer you stick with WebM and all that the royalty freeness buys you. I'll stick with H264 knowing that MS has already paid the royalty, the patent pool has virtually every player in the game, and MS indemnifies me as an end user. We'll call it a day.
- CrystalCox 16y agoAre you Kidding, Court Corruption STOPS the Real Inventors of the MPEG LA video Decoding - iViewit Technology invented it and has no rights.. DeniedPatent.com